112th Congress Rept. 112-79
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
1st Session Part 1
======================================================================
FISA SUNSETS REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2011
_______
May 18, 2011.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Smith of Texas, from the Committee on the Judiciary,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
DISSENTING VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 1800]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the
bill (H.R. 1800) to temporarily extend expiring provisions of
the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005
relating to access to business records and roving wiretaps and
to permanently extend expiring provisions of the Intelligence
Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 relating to
individual terrorists as agents of foreign powers, having
considered the same, reports favorably thereon without
amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 2
Background and Need for the Legislation.......................... 2
Hearings......................................................... 3
Committee Consideration.......................................... 4
Committee Votes.................................................. 4
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 10
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 10
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................ 10
Performance Goals and Objectives................................. 12
Advisory on Earmarks............................................. 12
Section-by-Section Analysis...................................... 12
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 12
Dissenting Views................................................. 13
Purpose and Summary
H.R. 1800 reauthorizes three provisions of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) that are scheduled to
sunset on May 27, 2011. Under the bill, the business records
provision, as enacted by Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act,
and the roving wiretaps provision, as enacted by Section 206 of
the USA PATRIOT Act, are authorized until December 31, 2017.
The FISA lone wolf definition, enacted by Section 6001 of the
Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
(IRTPA), is permanently authorized.
Background and Need for the Legislation
In response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001,
Congress passed, and the President signed into law, the USA
PATRIOT Act. That act, which amended FISA, was intended to
ensure that law enforcement agencies and the intelligence
community have the tools they need to stop and deter future
terrorist attacks.
The Section 215 business records authority allows the
Federal government to seek approval from the FISA Court of
orders granting the government access to any tangible items
(including books, records, papers, and other documents) in
foreign intelligence, international terrorism, and clandestine
intelligence cases. This authority is similar to the widely-
used grand jury subpoena authority in criminal investigations.
However, business records, which by definition reside in the
hands of a third party, do not implicate the Fourth Amendment.
There are numerous protections written into FISA to ensure
that the business records authority is not misused. Under
Section 215, only an Article III FISA judge can issue an order
for business records; an investigation of a U.S. person cannot
be based solely on activities protected by the First Amendment;
the records must be for a foreign intelligence or international
terrorism investigation; and minimization procedures must be
used. In addition, requests for certain records--including
library circulation, book sales, and firearms sales records--
must first be approved by the FBI Director, the Deputy
Director, or the head of the FBI's National Security Division.
The Section 206 roving wiretap provision authorizes FISA
Court orders for multipoint or ``roving'' wiretaps in foreign
intelligence investigations. A ``roving'' wiretap applies to an
individual and allows the government to a use a single wiretap
order to cover any communications device that the target uses
or may use. Without roving wiretap authority, investigators
would be forced to seek a new court order each time they need
to change the location, phone, or computer that needs to be
monitored. Roving wiretap authority has been available for
criminal investigations since 1986.
In order to use a roving wiretap, intelligence agents must
first establish, and the FISA Court must approve, all of the
criteria for a traditional wiretap. These include probable
cause that the target of the surveillance is a foreign power or
agent of a foreign power and probable cause that the device is
being used or about to be used by a foreign power or agent of a
foreign power. Then the agents must also show, and the FISA
Court must also agree, that the actions of the target may have
the effect of thwarting their identification. Once a roving
warrant is approved, the government must also notify the FISA
Court within 10 days after beginning surveillance on a new
phone or computer.
The ``lone wolf'' provision is a definitional change
intended to address the growing threat from individual
offenders. The provision allows the government to track a
foreign national who engages in acts to prepare for a terrorist
attack against the U.S. but is not affiliated, or cannot
immediately be shown to be affiliated, with a foreign terrorist
organization. The lone wolf definition cannot be used to
investigate U.S. persons, and only applies in cases of
suspected international terrorism.
To date, the government has never used the lone wolf
provision, which critics use as justification to let the
provision expire. This provision, however, is a crucial tool
against the growing threat of individual foreign terrorists
working alone in the United States. Some critics also argue
that the government can use Title III criminal wiretaps to
monitor lone wolf terrorists. Criminal wiretaps, however, are
ill-suited for use in intelligence operations for a number of
reasons. First, criminal wiretaps are authorized under the
presumption that the information collected will be used as
evidence in a trial and turned over to targets when they become
defendants in a criminal case. By contrast, FISA wiretaps are
used to collect foreign intelligence information that may never
be used in an Article III criminal trial. Second, unlike
criminal wiretaps, FISA wiretaps protect the sources and
methods of the government surveillance. This is crucial when
dealing with matters of national security. Third, criminal
wiretaps require ``live minimization'' to ensure that the
government does not improperly surveil protected activities.
However, live minimization is impossible in foreign
intelligence collection because most of the information
captured by FISA wiretaps is in a foreign language. Information
collected under FISA is recorded live, but is later translated
by linguists at the intelligence agencies. Under this approach,
there is no opportunity for the government to ``minimize''
information as it is collected.
Attorney General Eric Holder and FBI Director Robert
Mueller both requested in hearings before the Committee on the
Judiciary that Congress reauthorize these three provisions. The
Committee also received letters in support of reauthorizing the
three expiring provisions from the FBI Agents Association, the
Society of Former Special Agents of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, Inc., the Federal Law Enforcement Officers
Association, the Sergeants Benevolent Association (Police
Department, City of New York), the National Association of
Assistant United States Attorneys, the National District
Attorneys Association, the National Fraternal Order of Police,
the Major County Sheriffs' Association and Keep America Safe.
Hearings
The Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, and Homeland Security held three hearings on the USA
PATRIOT Act on March 9, 2011, March 30, 2011, and May 11, 2011.
Testimony was received from: Mr. Todd Hinnen, U.S. Department
of Justice; Mr. Robert S. Litt, Office of the Director of
National Intelligence; Professor Nathan Sales, George Mason
University; Mr. Julian Sanchez, Cato Institute; Mr. Kenneth
Wainstein, O'Melveny & Myers, LLP; Mr. Michael German, American
Civil Liberties Union; Mr. Patrick Rowan, McGuireWoods LLP; The
Honorable Bob Barr, former Member of Congress; Mr. Bruce Fein,
Campaign for Liberty; and Sergeant Ed Mullins, Sergeant
Benevolent Association of New York City. Additional materials
were submitted by: the American Civil Liberties Union, Keep
America Safe, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association,
the Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association, the
Cato Institute, the Sergeants Benevolent Association of New
York City, the Society of Former Special Agents of the FBI, the
National Association of Assistant United States Attorneys, and
the Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies. The
Committee on the Judiciary held no legislative hearings on H.R.
1800.
Committee Consideration
On May 12, 2011, the Committee met in open session and
ordered the bill H.R. 1800 favorably reported without
amendment, by a roll call vote of 22 to 13, a quorum being
present.
Committee Votes
In compliance with clause 3(b) of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the
following roll call votes occurred during the Committee's
consideration of H.R. 1800.
1. An amendment by Mr. Conyers to prohibit an application
for a 215 business record order requiring the production of
library and bookseller records. Defeated 10-17.
ROLLCALL NO. 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Smith, Chairman............................................. X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Lungren..................................................... X
Mr. Chabot...................................................... X
Mr. Issa........................................................
Mr. Pence....................................................... X
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Franks...................................................... X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
Mr. Poe......................................................... X
Mr. Chaffetz.................................................... X
Mr. Griffin..................................................... X
Mr. Marino...................................................... X
Mr. Gowdy.......................................................
Mr. Ross........................................................
Ms. Adams....................................................... X
Mr. Quayle......................................................
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member................................ X
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................
Ms. Lofgren..................................................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee................................................. X
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Cohen.......................................................
Mr. Johnson.....................................................
Mr. Pierluisi................................................... X
Mr. Quigley..................................................... X
Ms. Chu......................................................... X
Mr. Deutch...................................................... X
Ms. Sanchez..................................................... X
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 10 17
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. An amendment by Ms. Jackson Lee to extend the lone wolf,
roving wiretap, and business records provisions until December
31, 2014. Defeated 11-20.
ROLLCALL NO. 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Smith, Chairman............................................. X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Lungren..................................................... X
Mr. Chabot...................................................... X
Mr. Issa........................................................ X
Mr. Pence....................................................... X
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................
Mr. Franks...................................................... X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
Mr. Poe......................................................... X
Mr. Chaffetz.................................................... X
Mr. Griffin..................................................... X
Mr. Marino...................................................... X
Mr. Gowdy....................................................... X
Mr. Ross........................................................ X
Ms. Adams....................................................... X
Mr. Quayle...................................................... X
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member................................ X
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................
Ms. Lofgren..................................................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee................................................. X
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Cohen.......................................................
Mr. Johnson..................................................... X
Mr. Pierluisi................................................... X
Mr. Quigley..................................................... X
Ms. Chu......................................................... X
Mr. Deutch...................................................... X
Ms. Sanchez..................................................... X
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 11 20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. An amendment by Ms. Jackson Lee to require the President
to submit a report to relevant congressional committees on FISA
court secrecy. Defeated 11-20.
ROLLCALL NO. 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Smith, Chairman............................................. X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Lungren..................................................... X
Mr. Chabot...................................................... X
Mr. Issa........................................................ X
Mr. Pence....................................................... X
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................
Mr. Franks...................................................... X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
Mr. Poe......................................................... X
Mr. Chaffetz.................................................... X
Mr. Griffin..................................................... X
Mr. Marino...................................................... X
Mr. Gowdy....................................................... X
Mr. Ross........................................................ X
Ms. Adams....................................................... X
Mr. Quayle...................................................... X
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member................................ X
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................
Ms. Lofgren..................................................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee................................................. X
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Cohen.......................................................
Mr. Johnson..................................................... X
Mr. Pierluisi................................................... X
Mr. Quigley..................................................... X
Ms. Chu......................................................... X
Mr. Deutch...................................................... X
Ms. Sanchez..................................................... X
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 11 20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. An amendment by Mr. Nadler to raise standards for the
collection, pursuant to section 215, of personally identifiable
records held by libraries and booksellers. Defeated 11-21.
ROLLCALL NO. 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Smith, Chairman............................................. X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Lungren..................................................... X
Mr. Chabot...................................................... X
Mr. Issa........................................................ X
Mr. Pence....................................................... X
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Franks...................................................... X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
Mr. Poe......................................................... X
Mr. Chaffetz.................................................... X
Mr. Griffin..................................................... X
Mr. Marino...................................................... X
Mr. Gowdy....................................................... X
Mr. Ross........................................................ X
Ms. Adams....................................................... X
Mr. Quayle...................................................... X
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member................................ X
Mr. Berman...................................................... X
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................
Ms. Lofgren..................................................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson..................................................... X
Mr. Pierluisi................................................... X
Mr. Quigley..................................................... X
Ms. Chu......................................................... X
Mr. Deutch......................................................
Ms. Sanchez..................................................... X
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 11 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. An amendment by Mr. Johnson to require that, if a FISA
target's identity is not known, that the surveillance
application to describe the target ``with particularity.''
Defeated 11-18.
ROLLCALL NO. 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Smith, Chairman............................................. X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble.......................................................
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Lungren..................................................... X
Mr. Chabot...................................................... X
Mr. Issa........................................................ X
Mr. Pence.......................................................
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................ X
Mr. Franks...................................................... X
Mr. Gohmert.....................................................
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
Mr. Poe.........................................................
Mr. Chaffetz.................................................... X
Mr. Griffin..................................................... X
Mr. Marino...................................................... X
Mr. Gowdy....................................................... X
Mr. Ross........................................................ X
Ms. Adams....................................................... X
Mr. Quayle...................................................... X
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member................................ X
Mr. Berman......................................................
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................
Ms. Lofgren..................................................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson..................................................... X
Mr. Pierluisi................................................... X
Mr. Quigley..................................................... X
Ms. Chu......................................................... X
Mr. Deutch...................................................... X
Ms. Sanchez..................................................... X
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 11 18
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. An amendment by Ms. Chu to allow petitions to challenge
nondisclosure to be brought immediately and makes other changes
to the procedures for Sec. 215 nondisclosure orders; and an
amendment to institute annual Audits by the Inspector General
to Congress for years 2006-2007. It also institutes an annual
unclassified report by the Attorney General on how the powers
under this act are used. Defeated 12-19.
ROLLCALL NO. 6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Smith, Chairman............................................. X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Lungren..................................................... X
Mr. Chabot...................................................... X
Mr. Issa........................................................ X
Mr. Pence.......................................................
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................
Mr. Franks...................................................... X
Mr. Gohmert..................................................... X
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
Mr. Poe.........................................................
Mr. Chaffetz.................................................... X
Mr. Griffin..................................................... X
Mr. Marino...................................................... X
Mr. Gowdy....................................................... X
Mr. Ross........................................................ X
Ms. Adams....................................................... X
Mr. Quayle...................................................... X
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member................................ X
Mr. Berman...................................................... X
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................
Ms. Lofgren..................................................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson..................................................... X
Mr. Pierluisi................................................... X
Mr. Quigley..................................................... X
Ms. Chu......................................................... X
Mr. Deutch...................................................... X
Ms. Sanchez..................................................... X
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 12 19
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
7. An amendment by Mr. Quigley to permit the Attorney
General to ban the sale of firearms to any individual who,
based on information collection under FISA, is or has been
engaged in terrorist acts, if the Attorney General also has a
reasonable suspicion that the firearm would be used in
connection with terrorism. Defeated 11-21.
ROLLCALL NO. 7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Smith, Chairman............................................. X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Lungren..................................................... X
Mr. Chabot...................................................... X
Mr. Issa........................................................ X
Mr. Pence....................................................... X
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................
Mr. Franks...................................................... X
Mr. Gohmert..................................................... X
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
Mr. Poe......................................................... X
Mr. Chaffetz.................................................... X
Mr. Griffin..................................................... X
Mr. Marino...................................................... X
Mr. Gowdy....................................................... X
Mr. Ross........................................................ X
Ms. Adams....................................................... X
Mr. Quayle...................................................... X
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member................................ X
Mr. Berman...................................................... X
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................
Ms. Lofgren..................................................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters......................................................
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson.....................................................
Mr. Pierluisi................................................... X
Mr. Quigley..................................................... X
Ms. Chu......................................................... X
Mr. Deutch...................................................... X
Ms. Sanchez..................................................... X
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 11 21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Motion to order the bill favorably reported without
amendment. Approved 22-13.
ROLLCALL NO. 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ayes Nays Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Smith, Chairman............................................. X
Mr. Sensenbrenner, Jr........................................... X
Mr. Coble....................................................... X
Mr. Gallegly.................................................... X
Mr. Goodlatte................................................... X
Mr. Lungren..................................................... X
Mr. Chabot...................................................... X
Mr. Issa........................................................ X
Mr. Pence....................................................... X
Mr. Forbes...................................................... X
Mr. King........................................................
Mr. Franks...................................................... X
Mr. Gohmert..................................................... X
Mr. Jordan...................................................... X
Mr. Poe......................................................... X
Mr. Chaffetz.................................................... X
Mr. Griffin..................................................... X
Mr. Marino...................................................... X
Mr. Gowdy....................................................... X
Mr. Ross........................................................ X
Ms. Adams....................................................... X
Mr. Quayle...................................................... X
Mr. Conyers, Jr., Ranking Member................................ X
Mr. Berman...................................................... X
Mr. Nadler...................................................... X
Mr. Scott....................................................... X
Mr. Watt........................................................ X
Ms. Lofgren..................................................... X
Ms. Jackson Lee.................................................
Ms. Waters...................................................... X
Mr. Cohen....................................................... X
Mr. Johnson..................................................... X
Mr. Pierluisi................................................... X
Mr. Quigley..................................................... X
Ms. Chu......................................................... X
Mr. Deutch...................................................... X
Ms. Sanchez..................................................... X
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 22 13
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Committee Oversight Findings
In compliance with clause 3(c)(1) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee advises that the
findings and recommendations of the Committee, based on
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the
descriptive portions of this report.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
Clause 3(c)(2) of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives is inapplicable because this legislation does
not provide new budgetary authority or increased tax
expenditures.
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
In compliance with clause 3(c)(3) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets forth, with
respect to the bill, H.R. 1800, the following estimate and
comparison prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget
Office under section 402 of the Congressional Budget Act of
1974:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, May 18, 2011.
Hon. Lamar Smith, Chairman,
Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1800, the ``FISA
Sunsets Reauthorization Act of 2011.''
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Mark
Grabowicz, who can be reached at 226-2860.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf,
Director.
Enclosure
cc:
Honorable John Conyers, Jr.
Ranking Member
H.R. 1800--FISA Sunsets Reauthorization Act of 2011.
CBO estimates that implementing H.R. 1800 would have no
significant costs to the Federal Government. Enacting the bill
could affect direct spending and revenues; therefore, pay-as-
you-go procedures apply. However, CBO estimates that any
effects would be insignificant for each year.
CBO has determined that the provisions of H.R. 1800 are
either excluded from review for mandates under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act because they are necessary for national
security or they contain no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined by that act.
The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of
2004 (Public Law 108-458) and the USA PATRIOT Improvement and
Reauthorization Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-177) expanded the
powers of Federal law enforcement and intelligence agencies to
investigate and prosecute terrorist acts. H.R. 1800 would
extend or make permanent certain provisions of those acts that
would otherwise expire later this month.
Because those prosecuted and convicted under H.R. 1800
could be subject to civil and criminal fines, the Federal
Government might collect additional fines if the legislation is
enacted. Collections of civil fines are recorded in the budget
as revenues. Criminal fines are recorded as revenues, deposited
in the Crime Victims Fund, and later spent. CBO expects that
any additional revenues and direct spending would not be
significant because of the small number of cases likely to be
affected.
On March 31, 2011, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for S.
193, the USA PATRIOT Act Sunset Extension Act of 2011, as
reported by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on March 17,
2011. The two bills contain similar provisions to extend the
Federal Government's current authority to investigate terrorist
acts. However, S. 193 also would require audits and reports by
the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the intelligence community
and would rescind unobligated balances from the DOJ's Assets
Forfeiture Fund. The cost estimates reflect the differences
between the two bills.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Mark Grabowicz.
The estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Performance Goals and Objectives
The Committee states that pursuant to clause 3(c)(4) of
rule XIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives, H.R.
1800 authorizes Section 215 business records and Section 206
roving wiretap authority until December 31, 2017, and
permanently authorizes FISA's lone wolf definition.
Advisory on Earmarks
In accordance with clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, H.R. 1800 does not contain any
congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff
benefits as defined in clause 9(e), 9(f), or 9(g) of Rule XXI.
Section-by-Section Analysis
The following discussion describes the bill as reported by
the Committee.
Section 1: Short Title
Section 1 provides that H.R. 1800 may be cited as the
``FISA Sunsets Reauthorization Act of 2011.''
Section 2: Extension of Sunsets of Provisions Relating to Access to
Business Records, Individual Terrorists as Agents of Foreign
Powers, and Roving Wiretaps
Section 2 temporarily extends the authorization of Section
215 business records collection and roving wiretaps until
December 31, 2017. Section 2 also permanently extends the
authorization for the lone wolf provision.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3(e) of rule XIII of the Rules
of the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made
by the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new
matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change
is proposed is shown in roman):
USA PATRIOT IMPROVEMENT AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005
* * * * * * *
TITLE I--USA PATRIOT IMPROVEMENT AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT
* * * * * * *
SEC. 102. USA PATRIOT ACT SUNSET PROVISIONS.
(a) * * *
(b) Sections 206 and 215 Sunset.--
(1) In general.--Effective [May 27, 2011] December
31, 2017, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of
1978 is amended so that sections 501, 502, and
105(c)(2) read as they read on October 25, 2001.
* * * * * * *
----------
INTELLIGENCE REFORM AND TERRORISM PREVENTION ACT OF 2004
* * * * * * *
TITLE VI--TERRORISM PREVENTION
Subtitle A--Individual Terrorists as Agents of Foreign Powers
SEC. 6001. INDIVIDUAL TERRORISTS AS AGENTS OF FOREIGN POWERS.
[(a) In General.--Section] Section 101(b)(1) of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801(b)(1)) is
amended by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
``(C) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(b) Sunset.--
[(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph
(2), the amendment made by subsection (a) shall cease
to have effect on May 27, 2011.
[(2) Exception.--With respect to any particular
foreign intelligence investigation that began before
the date on which the provisions referred to in
paragraph (1) cease to have effect, or with respect to
any particular offense or potential offense that began
or occurred before the date on which the provisions
cease to have effect, such provisions shall continue in
effect.]
* * * * * * *
Dissenting Views
INTRODUCTION
H.R. 1800 is a missed opportunity. This legislation deals
with three surveillance powers set to expire on May 27, 2011--
the ``lone wolf'' definition for individual terrorist suspects,
the ``Section 215'' business records collection power, and the
roving wiretap authority. Members on both sides of the aisle
have expressed serious concerns with each of these provisions,
but the bill addresses none of these misgivings. It makes no
substantive changes to the PATRIOT Act whatsoever. The Majority
could have worked to reach consensus and craft a compromise
that improves the underlying law. Instead, they chose to ignore
differing opinions and push through a bill that does not make a
single correction or adopt even those amendments that enjoy
bipartisan support.
CONCERNS ABOUT H.R. 1800 AND THE EXPIRING PROVISIONS OF
THE USA PATRIOT ACT
The USA PATRIOT Act raises serious questions about the
proper balance between individual liberty and government
authority. The three specific surveillance powers that expire
on May 27 are not the most controversial portions of the law,
but they do raise significant concerns.\1\ Reauthorization
would have provided an important opportunity for Congress to
reevaluate and improve these authorities. H.R. 1800 instead
extends the expiring provisions without addressing any of the
concerns that have been raised.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\The issues raised below relate to unclassified uses of these
authorities. Committee members have been briefed on classified matters
that also raise civil liberties questions. Those concerns, of course,
may not be aired in this public report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerns regarding Section 215
Relevance is too broad a standard. Section 215 allows the
government to seize virtually any record or information from
any person or business in the United States simply by showing
the information is ``relevant'' to a national security
investigation.\2\ In addition, the statute says that certain
categories of information are ``presumptively relevant''--
including any information that ``pertains'' to a person ``in
contact with, or known to, a suspected agent of a foreign
power.'' Under Section 215, information can be collected about
any innocent American, who is not suspected of terrorism or
anything else, simply if it is relevant to an investigation of
some other person or group. This includes highly personal
information such as library records and reading history,
medical records, and social networking information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\50 U.S.C. Sec. 1861(b)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ranking Member Conyers and Rep. Nadler each offered
amendments that would provide specific protections to libraries
and booksellers. The Conyers amendment would have prohibited
intelligence agencies from making a Section 215 demand for
``library circulations records, library patron lists, book
sales records, [and] book customer lists.'' The limitation
would have applied only to Section 215; all of these records
would have remained available to law enforcement via normal
criminal investigation processes. Notably, the Ranking Member--
joined by Rep. Nadler, Rep. Ron Paul, and Rep. Walter Jones--
introduced an identical amendment to the Continuing Resolution
debated on the House floor this past February. At that time, 32
Republicans--including Reps. Adams and Chaffetz
--voted in favor of the proposal.\3\ At the markup, Reps. Adams
and Chaffetz reversed their position, and the amendment was
defeated by a party line vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\H.R. 1, Roll Call Vote 95, 112th Cong., Feb. 18, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rep. Nadler offered a modified version of this amendment.
Under his proposal, library and bookseller records are only
available under Section 215 with ``a statement of specific and
articulable facts showing . . . reasonable grounds to believe
that the records sought are relevant to an authorized
investigation to obtain foreign intelligence information,'' and
that the records have a sufficient nexus to a suspected
terrorist or foreign agent. The amendment would have raised the
Section 215 standard from mere ``relevance'' and provided a
basic layer of protection to the privacy of individual
citizens. Simply put, ``Americans do not want the government
looking into what they read.''\4\ Nonetheless, the amendment
was again defeated on a party vote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\Markup of H.R. 1800, FISA Sunsets Reauthorization Act of 2011,
H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 112th Cong., May 12, 2011 (remarks of Rep.
Sensenbrenner) (unofficial transcript).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Presumptive Relevance'' is unreasonable. The Section 215
statute makes certain categories of information ``presumptively
relevant''--including any information that ``pertains'' to a
person ``in contact with, or known to, a suspected agent of a
foreign power.''\5\ This presumption--which cannot be
challenged or rejected by the Court--is sweeping. For example,
if the child of a foreign diplomat (``an agent of a foreign
power'') attended a birthday party at a classmate's home, the
Section 215 presumptive relevance standard could enable the FBI
to obtain any information that ``pertains'' to that classmate's
family, including bank records, drivers license files, or
workplace personnel files. Similarly, if a suspect of a
terrorism investigation viewed a person's public Facebook page,
or responded to a classified advertisement, the FBI could
likely use a Section 215 order to collect all of that person's
online records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\50 U.S.C. Sec. 1861(b)(2)(i)-(iii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intelligence operations are not the same as ordinary
criminal investigations. Although the Section 215 authority is
similar to the subpoena power held by grand juries, the
procedural checks that deter abuse in the criminal context do
not necessarily apply in the intelligence context. First,
evidence seized with a criminal subpoena is intended for use in
court, whereas Section 215 orders may be used for long term
intelligence gathering with no expectation of courtroom
proceedings. Thus, while the exclusionary rule and criminal
discovery obligations deter abusive or overreaching use of
subpoenas in the criminal context, there is no comparable
deterrent to abuse in intelligence operations. In addition,
Section 215 orders come with powerful nondisclosure (or
``gag'') rules which can prevent the subject of a Section 215
order from ever knowing their private information has been
taken by the government. In markup, Rep. Chu offered an
amendment that would have limited these gag orders and given
citizens an immediate right to challenge the legality of a
Section 215 order in a court of law. The amendment was defeated
on party lines.
The Justice Department Inspector General has identified
problems with the use of Section 215 orders. Recent reports
published by the DOJ Inspector General have identified a number
of improper or otherwise problematic 215 orders.
LIn one case, the FBI obtained a Section 215
order for information regarding a telephone line that
was not actually used by the subject of the
investigation. According to the Office of the Inspector
General, ``this resulted in the FBI receiving
unauthorized information, which is called `over
collection,' between March 2005 and October 2005.''\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\DOJ Office of the Inspector General, A Review of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation's Use of Section 215 Orders for Business
Records, at page xii (March 2007).
LIn another case, the FBI was collecting
information about a certain telephone line. During this
time, the phone company assigned the number to a
different person, but failed to inform the FBI of this
fact for several weeks. As a result, the FBI used its
Section 215 authority to collect information about an
innocent person who was not connected to the
investigation.\7\ There is no suggestion that the over
collection here was intentional, but that does not
necessarily lessen the personal intrusion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\DOJ Office of the Inspector General, A Review of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation's Use of Section 215 Orders for Business
Records, at page xii (March 2007).
LIn April 2005, the FBI learned that a source,
who had provided significant information about the
target of a Section 215 order, had changed his mind and
no longer believed that the target was involved with a
particular terrorist group. However, this changed
information was not reported to the FISA court until
January 2006, prompting the court to demand an
explanation of the failure to timely report this
information.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\DOJ Office of the Inspector General, A Review of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation's Use of Section 215 Orders for Business
Records, at page xiii (March 2007).
The Justice Department's Inspector General is currently
conducting a review of the use of Section 215. It is
irresponsible to pass an unprecedented 6-year extension of this
authority without the benefit of the information contained in
the forthcoming audit.
Concerns regarding Roving Wiretaps
The risk of tapping the wrong person is too high in the
FISA context. Roving wiretap authority is commonly used in the
criminal context and is not especially controversial. However,
FISA authorizes the government to obtain roving power by
providing a ``description of the target'' if the person's
identity is not known. This loose standard increases the
likelihood that the wrong person will accidentally be targeted
for FISA wiretapping.
This concern is heightened in the intelligence context
where the lack of notice to the suspect and the focus on
intelligence gathering, rather than eventual prosecution,
create poor incentives and undermine deterrents to abuse.
In markup, Rep. Johnson offered an amendment that would
have required law enforcement to describe the target ``with
particularity'' before a warrant may for a roving wiretap. The
amendment would have merely codified current practice--the
Department of Justice has testified that it already provides
the court with sufficient detail to describe a target with
particularity.\9\ The government has, in essence, conceded that
this assurance of privacy will have no impact on its
operational flexibility. Nonetheless, the Majority defeated the
amendment on party lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\Hearing on the Reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, H. Comm. on
the Judiciary, Subcomm. on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security,
March 9, 2011 (testimony of Acting Attorney General Todd Hinnen,
Department of Justice, National Security Division).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Concerns Regarding Lone Wolf Surveillance
FISA powers are not necessary to investigate individual
lone actors. FISA brings extraordinarily intrusive search and
surveillance powers to bear on the targets of national security
investigations, including inside the United States. Those
intrusions are justified in part on the grounds that the target
is a foreign government or terrorist group or other significant
power. But lone wolf brings these powers to bear on single
individuals if they are suspected of ``acts in preparation''
for international terrorism.
FISA's constitutionality depends in part on the fact that
its search and seizure powers apply in grave national security
matters, rather than in ordinary criminal investigation. In
2009, national security law expert Suzanne Spaulding testified
that allowing FISA powers to be used via lone wolf in what may
be rather mundane criminal investigations puts the
constitutionality of FISA at risk. \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\Testimony of Suzanne Spaulding before the House Committee on
the Judiciary, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and
Civil Liberties, at 11-15, September 22, 2009.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lone Wolf has never been used. The executive branch has
never used the lone wolf provision. Without this authority,
they would retain ample means under our robust criminal
investigatory system to deal with single individuals suspected
of terrorist acts or preparation therefore. We appreciate that
some Members feel we should retain the lone wolf provision even
though it has not proven necessary during the last 7 years of
heightened terror threats. The record of non-use suggests,
however, that--at a minimum--a new sunset is needed to ensure
effective oversight and reporting to Congress on this novel
power. Making this provision permanent when it has no track
record is simply reckless.
THE MAJORITY HAS BEEN UNWILLING TO NEGOTIATE OR COMPROMISE
On March 30, 2011, in a subcommittee oversight hearing on
the ``Permanent Provisions of the PATRIOT Act,'' Ranking Member
Conyers began his opening statement with a fair and
uncontroversial request:
[W]e come here today to request of you that we have
another meeting on this subject without the
distinguished witnesses that are here where we can
discuss some of the unclassified and classified
materials that would be the subject of such a meeting.
I am fully aware that the month after next we are going
to have to dispose of this matter, and I think that
this would be a very important meeting in terms of
reaching some kind of consensus about where we are. . .
. I would like this discussed here today, of course,
but I would like us to meet with the Committee in a
non-public hearing on that issue.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\Hearing on the Permanent Provisions of the PATRIOT Act, H.
Comm. on the Judiciary, Subcomm. on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland
Security, March 30, 2011 (remarks of Ranking Member John Conyers, Jr.).
In past months, Committee Democrats have sought
opportunities to discuss the PATRIOT Act. Each time, the
Majority was unwilling to meet or unwilling to discuss
substantive changes to the underlying law.
H.R. 1805--A Better Vehicle for Consensus
There is a better way to craft legislation. A responsible
legislative effort based on winning broad support--rather than
forcing through a controversial bill on party line votes--would
have allowed consideration of concerns raised by members of
both parties but that fall outside the narrow scope of H.R.
1800.
To this end, Ranking Member Conyers introduced H.R. 1805,
the ``USA PATRIOT Sunset Extension Act of 2011.'' The bill is
cosponsored by Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger, Ranking Member of the
House Permanent Subcommittee on Intelligence. It represents a
responsible effort to improve the expiring authorities while
preserving their operational utility.
H.R. 1805 is the companion to S. 193, a bipartisan measure
crafted by Senator Patrick Leahy and reported out of the Senate
Judiciary Committee earlier this year.\12\ It embodies an
approach that has the ready support of the executive branch and
the intelligence community. At a PATRIOT Act hearing before the
Crime Subcommittee earlier this year, for example, General
Counsel of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence
stated that ``I think the provisions in [S. 193] are examples
of the kinds of provisions . . . that would provide enhanced
protection for civil liberties without affecting operational
utility.''\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\See S. Rep. 112-13 to accompany S. 193, ``The USA PATRIOT
Sunset Extension Act of 2011,'' April 11, 2011.
\13\Hearing on the Reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act, H. Comm. on
the Judiciary, Subcomm. on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security,
March 9, 2011 (response of Robert Lit to a question by Ranking Member
Conyers).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unlike the Majority's bill, H.R. 1805 directly addresses
many of the concerns raised by the use of the PATRIOT Act. It
does not allow any of the expiring provisions to lapse. It
includes reasonable 2\1/2\ year sunsets for all three
authorities. It provides heightened protection for libraries
and booksellers, but does not bar collection of even this
sensitive information. It tightens standards for roving
wiretaps, while allowing roving authority to still be used. It
eliminates the overbroad presumption of relevance in Section
215, and requires a thorough statement of facts to be presented
in support of all Section 215 applications--but does not
otherwise heighten the basic Section 215 standard. And it fixes
a number of constitutional and practical problems with Section
215 nondisclosure orders, while allowing appropriate secrecy to
be maintained.
H.R. 1805 also strengthens National Security Letter
processes, requiring creation and retention of better NSL
records, improving NSL nondisclosure order practices, and
placing a sunset on NSLs. The bill also coordinates a number of
surveillance authorities sunsets so that the whole range of
interrelated intelligence tools can be considered together in a
comprehensive manner next time around, rather than in bits and
pieces, year by year.
H.R. 1800 Follows Past Practice for the Majority
For a decade, House Republicans have promised open debate
and compromise on the PATRIOT Act. Instead, the Majority has
reneged on deals with House and Senate Democrats, walked away
from the bargaining table, and created a hostile environment
for Members and witnesses who disagree with the scope and reach
of the bill.
In 2001, within days of the September 11 attacks, Attorney
General John Ashcroft announced that the Justice Department
would draft a bill outlining new powers needed for the federal
government to fight terrorism. A subsequent hearing held on
September 24, 2001, was so rushed that the Attorney General
would not submit to a full round of questions by the members.
Nonetheless, the Committee worked out a compromise with the
Bush Administration. On October 3, 2001, the Committee reported
out H.R. 2975 by a unanimous 36-0 vote.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\H.R. Rep. No. 236, 107th Cong., 2d Sess. (2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While H.R. 2975 was being prepared for floor consideration,
and in the middle of the 2001 anthrax scare on Capitol Hill,
the Administration reneged on its deal. Chairman Sensenbrenner
introduced a new and more aggressive version of the bill that
became the basis for the final PATRIOT Act. Compromise talks
were abandoned. At no point was the Committee permitted to
consider this version of the legislation.
This Congress, the Majority dropped H.R. 1800 late on a
Friday afternoon, while the House was in pro forma session and
members were in their districts. The bill ignores concerns
raised by both members of both parties. It has never had the
benefit of a legislative hearing. From this lack of notice, and
from the lack of respect shown to differing opinions throughout
this process, we can only conclude that the Majority cannot be
expected to meaningfully negotiate--with members of either
party--to resolve the many outstanding concerns we have with
this legislation.
THERE IS STRONG BIPARTISAN OPPOSITION TO H.R. 1800
Opposition to this bill runs wide and deep across the
political spectrum. Traditional defenders of civil liberties
oppose the bill because it extends (or makes permanent) these
surveillance authorities without any additional protections for
privacy and civil liberties. These opponents include the
American Civil Liberties Union and the Electronic Frontier
Foundation.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\The PATRIOT Act has long been opposed by civil liberties and
law reform organizations. In 2005, for example, the following groups
opposed re-authorization: The Center for Constitutional Rights, the
American Conservative Union, American Immigration Lawyers Association,
American Library Association, the Center for Democracy and Technology,
Common Cause, Free Congress Foundation, Gun Owners of America, Lawyers'
Committee for Civil Rights, National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People (NAACP), National Association of Criminal Defense
Lawyers, People for the American Way, the American-Arab Anti-
Discrimination Committee, American Association of Law Libraries,
American Baptist Churches USA, American Humanist Association, American
Policy Center, Americans for Tax Reform, Arab American Institute, Asian
Americans for Equality, Asian American Legal Defense & Education Fund,
Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Association of
Research Libraries, Bill of Rights Defense Committee, Center for Human
Rights and Constitutional Law, Center for Justice and Accountability,
Center for National Security Studies, Chicago Committee to Defend the
Bill of Rights, Commission on Social Action of Reform Judaism, Consumer
Action, Doctors for Disaster Preparedness, Electronic Privacy
Information Center, First Amendment Foundation, F.I.R.S.T. Project,
Inc., Friends Committee on National Legislation, Hate Free Zone
Campaign of Washington, Immigrant Defense Project of the New York State
Defenders Association, Immigrant Legal Resource Center, International
Institute of Boston, Japanese American Citizens League, Korean Resource
Center, Latin American Integration Center, Lawyers Committee for Human
Rights, League of United Latin American Citizens, Mennonite Central
Committee U.S., Washington Office, Mexican American Legal Defense and
Educational Fund (MALDEF), Multiracial Activist, National Asian Pacific
American Legal Consortium, National Coalition Against Repressive
Legislation, National Council of La Raza, National Employment Law
Project, National Immigration Law Center, National Lawyers Guild, New
York Immigration Coalition, Northwest Immigrant Rights Project, OMB
Watch, Organization of Chinese Americans, Police Accountability
Project, Presbyterian Church USA, Washington Office, and the Special
Libraries Association. See Dissenting Views regarding H.R. 3199
(109th), House Report 109-174 at 444.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have also seen a powerful new wave of conservative
opposition to the overreaching government surveillance
authorized by the PATRIOT Act. When the first PATRIOT Act
reauthorization was brought to the floor this Congress, it was
defeated on suspension, with 26 Republicans voting against.\16\
Weeks later, Reps. Conyers, Nadler, Paul and Jones offered a
bipartisan amendment to the Republican continuing budget
resolution that would have protected libraries and booksellers
from having their records seized, which received 32 Republican
votes on the floor.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\Roll Call 26 on H.R. 514 (112th Congress) (February 8, 2011).
\17\Roll Call 95 on Amendment 524 to H.R. 1 (112th Congress)
(February 18, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since then, numerous Republicans and conservatives have
spoken out against the approach reflected in this legislation.
For example, our former Colleague Bob Barr of Georgia testified
at a recent hearing before the Subcommittee on Crime,
Terrorism, and Homeland Security that:
``I understand the Chairman introduced legislation last
week that would make the so-called `lone-wolf'
authority in the USA PATRIOT Act permanent; and would
extend the Section 215 and roving `John Doe' wiretap
authorities in the Act for another 6 years, until 2017.
I urge this committee to reject this approach tomorrow
during its markup, and either amend these sections in
order to bring them into full compliance with the
letter and the intent of our Constitution, or else
allow them to expire.''\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\Prepared Testimony of Hon. Robert Barr at a ``Hearing on the
USA PATRIOT Act: Dispelling the Myths,'' before the Subcomm. on Crime,
Terrorism, and Homeland Security of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary
(112th Cong.) (May 11, 2011).
Bruce Fein, a conservative scholar and former Reagan
Administration official, also testified against the PATRIOT
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Act. Mr. Fein explained:
``Despite the good intentions of its architects, the
PATRIOT Act betrays bedrock constitutional principles.
The individual is the center of the Constitution's
universe. Aggrandizing government is the center of the
PATRIOT Act. The Constitution salutes freedom and
citizen sovereignty over absolute safety and citizen
vassalage. The PATRIOT Act turns that hierarchy on its
head.''\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\Prepared Testimony of Bruce Fein at a ``Hearing on the USA
PATRIOT Act: Dispelling the Myths,'' before the Subcomm. on Crime,
Terrorism, and Homeland Security of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary
(112th Cong.) (May 11, 2011).
And Senator Rand Paul released a letter to his colleagues
stating his opposition to extending these authorities. Senator
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul wrote:
``The USA PATRIOT Act, passed in the wake of the worst
act of terrorism in U.S. history, is no doubt well-
intentioned. However, rather than examine what went
wrong, and fix the problems, Congress instead hastily
passed a long-standing wish list of power grabs like
warrantless searches and roving wiretaps. The
government greatly expanded its own power, ignoring
obvious answers in favor of the permanent expansion of
the police state. It is not acceptable to willfully
ignore the most basic provisions of our Constitution--
in this case the Fourth and First Amendments--in the
name of `security.'''\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\Letter from Senator Rand Paul to Colleagues at 1-2 (February
15, 2011). Many other conservatives have opposed the bill. CATO
Institute research fellow Julian Sanchez testified at a March 9, 2011,
Judiciary Subcommittee hearing that ``these emergency powers should not
be made permanent until they are further tailored to ensure that the
tools employed to investigate and apprehend terrorists are consistent
with our Constitutional tradition of respect for the privacy and civil
liberties of innocent Americans.'' And conservative lawyer John
Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute recently published his
opposition, arguing ``the freedoms in the Bill of Rights are being
eviscerated, and if they are not restored and soon, freedom as we have
known it in America will be lost. Thus, whether it's a short-term or
long-term scenario, Congress should not renew the USA Patriot Act, nor
should President Obama sign it into law.'' Whitehead, Renewing the
Patriot Act: Who Will Protect Us From Our Government (May 16, 2011).
The opposition to H.R. 1800 even has a strong base within
the House Republican caucus. Citing a need ``to evaluate,
amend, improve, and potentially replace all provisions of the
PATRIOT Act, not just the three provisions at issue here,''
Rep. Chaffetz stated: ``I have at least three specific
concerns, and look forward to incorporating your concerns with
mine as I draft amendments during the hearing and markup
process.''\21\ Indeed, Judiciary Republicans filed six
amendments to H.R. 1800 in advance of the markup.\22\ Some of
these amendments were identical to proposals offered by the
Minority; others were compromise measures that would have
likely enjoyed substantial bipartisan support. All of these
Republican amendments were withdrawn overnight.\23\ Every
Democratic amendment, even those closely resembling Republican
proposals, was voted down along party lines.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\Press Release, Rep. Jason Chaffetz, ``Renewal of PATRIOT Act
Provisions,'' Feb. 23, 2011 (available at http://chaffetz.house.gov/
legislative-issues/2011/02/renewal-of-patriot-act-provisions.shtml).
\22\The Committee's rules permit members of both parties to review
proposed amendments at least a day before markup begins. H. Comm. on
the Judiciary, 112th Cong. Rules of Proc., Rule II(f). Rep. Issa ``pre-
filed'' two amendments to H.R. 1800. Rep. Chaffetz pre-filed four
amendments. The Majority did not permit the Committee to consider any
of these proposals at markup.
\23\See John Bresnahan and Jake Sherman, ``GOP Struggles for
PATRIOT Act Votes,'' Politico, p. 1, May 12, 2001. ``House Republican
leaders are aggressively lobbying rank-and-file GOP lawmakers to pass a
long-term extension of the PATRIOT Act, a Bush-era anti-terrorism law
that has already provided Republicans with an embarrassing defeat early
in their majority.'' Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Committee favorably reported H.R. 1800 by a vote of 22-
13, with Republican Jason Chaffetz of Utah voting against. The
Majority may succeed in their attempt to push through another
aggressive PATRIOT Act reauthorization--but they will face
substantial and bipartisan opposition, and they will have
missed an opportunity to reach consensus on this bill.
John Conyers, Jr.
Jerrold Nadler.
Robert C. ``Bobby'' Scott.
Melvin L. Watt.
Sheila Jackson Lee.
Maxine Waters.
Steve Cohen.
Henry C. ``Hank'' Johnson, Jr.
Judy Chu.
Ted Deutch.